N L Rauwerda1, K A Tovote2, A C T M Peeters3, R Sanderman2,4, P M G Emmelkamp5, M J Schroevers2, J Fleer2. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Rivierenland, Tiel, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam and Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the acceptability of two questionnaires, the five item WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), which differ in length and focus, by comparing three screening groups: (1) WHO-5, (2) BDI-II and (3) WHO-5 and BDI-II. METHODS: A total of 699 individuals with diabetes were approached to participate in the study, of whom 95 completed the WHO-5, 254 completed the BDI-II and 350 completed both the WHO-5 and the BDI-II questionnaires. Five facets of acceptability were compared, including objective aspects (response rate and completion level) and subjective aspects (appreciation, agreeableness and accuracy of the screening questionnaire). Data were analysed using logistic regression analysis and (multivariate) analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 65% (453 out of 699). No differences between the three groups were found with respect to the response rate (WHO-5: 66%; BDI-II: 63%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 66%; P ≥ 0.19) and completion level (WHO-5: 99.5%; BDI-II: 97.8%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 98.7%; P=0.45). The three groups did differ significantly in their scores on two of the three subjective indicators (P<0.03), i.e. appreciation (P=0.002) and agreeableness (P=0.035), with those completing only the WHO-5 reporting greater appreciation and agreeableness. CONCLUSIONS: A brief well-being questionnaire, such as the WHO-5, results in greater appreciation of mood screening and appreciation of completing the questionnaire, but this does not result in a better response rate and higher questionnaire completion. Given these results, either or both questionnaires can be used to screen for depressive symptoms in people with diabetes in clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To investigate the acceptability of two questionnaires, the five item WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), which differ in length and focus, by comparing three screening groups: (1) WHO-5, (2) BDI-II and (3) WHO-5 and BDI-II. METHODS: A total of 699 individuals with diabetes were approached to participate in the study, of whom 95 completed the WHO-5, 254 completed the BDI-II and 350 completed both the WHO-5 and the BDI-II questionnaires. Five facets of acceptability were compared, including objective aspects (response rate and completion level) and subjective aspects (appreciation, agreeableness and accuracy of the screening questionnaire). Data were analysed using logistic regression analysis and (multivariate) analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 65% (453 out of 699). No differences between the three groups were found with respect to the response rate (WHO-5: 66%; BDI-II: 63%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 66%; P ≥ 0.19) and completion level (WHO-5: 99.5%; BDI-II: 97.8%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 98.7%; P=0.45). The three groups did differ significantly in their scores on two of the three subjective indicators (P<0.03), i.e. appreciation (P=0.002) and agreeableness (P=0.035), with those completing only the WHO-5 reporting greater appreciation and agreeableness. CONCLUSIONS: A brief well-being questionnaire, such as the WHO-5, results in greater appreciation of mood screening and appreciation of completing the questionnaire, but this does not result in a better response rate and higher questionnaire completion. Given these results, either or both questionnaires can be used to screen for depressive symptoms in people with diabetes in clinical practice.
Authors: Ingvild Hernar; Marit Graue; David A Richards; Ragnhild B Strandberg; Roy Miodini Nilsen; Magne Rekdal; Karianne Fjeld Løvaas; Tone V Madsen; Grethe S Tell; Anne Haugstvedt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mónica Carreira; María Soledad Ruiz de Adana; Marta Domínguez; Sergio Valdés; Maria Cruz Almaraz; Gabriel Olveira; María Teresa Anarte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sarah AlKandari; Ahmad Salman; Fatima Al-Ghadban; Rasheed Ahmad Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 4.614